CAPISTRANO v.

LIMCUANDO
February 13, 2009

FACTS: Petitioner owned a parcel of land in Laguna pursuant to a free patent issued on 1977. She sold that parcel of land with right to repurchase to spouses Zuasola and Subida. Later on, she sold of the same parcel of land to respondents in the amount of 75K with the understanding that 10K will be paid as initial payment and the balance will be paid in installment basis. Upon receipt of the initial payment, the petitioner signed the deed of absolute sale. Subsequently, respondents failed to pay the installment despite repeated demand made by the petitioner. The respondents claimed that they have fully satisfied the consideration of the sale of the land in question according to the terms and conditions of the sale. Later on, respondents learned that the subject land was already sold by the petitioner to spouses Zuasola and Subida so the respondents filed a criminal case of estafa against petitioner. The petitioner was convicted. After 4 months, petitioner repurchased the subject land from spouses Zuasola and Subida. She also offered to repurchase from respondents the parcel of the land in question but was refused. A certificate of title was issued in favor of the respondents. Petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of the deed of sale. She also invoked Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act as an alternative cause of action. The RTC sustained the validity of the deed of sale and denied the petitioners right to repurchase the subject land. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition for review. ISSUE: W/N petitioner may still repurchase the land under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act? HELD: NO. Sec. 119 subject said lands alienation, impliedly after the expiration of the prohibitive period, upon a right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow, or heirs, w/in a period of 5 yrs from the date of its conveyance. The Court ruled that the Petitioners right to repurchase the 1/2 portion of the property no longer exists. The prohibition against the alienation of the land acquired by petitioner by free patent ended on 1983 or 5 years from its issuance. Thus, when petitioner sold the one-half (1/2) portion of the property to respondents on 1989, the redemption period contemplated by Section 119 of the Public Land Act, no longer finds application. When petitioner sold the subject property to the respondents, she no longer had any right to do so for having previously sold the same property to other vendees. It is undeniable then that p etitioner fraudulently obtained the consent of respondents in the execution of the assailed deed of sale. Certainly, petitioners action for annulment of the subject deed should be dismissed based on Art. 1397 of the Civil Code which provides that the person who employed fraud cannot base his action for the annulment of contracts upon such flaw of the contract. Petitioner is, therefore, precluded from seeking the annulment of the said contract based on the fraud which she herself has caused.